An extremist, not a fanatic

October 21, 2016

The freedom-hating right

The Sun wants the BBC to sack Gary Lineker for “peddling lies.” Let’s leave aside the fact that the Sun is much better at peddling lies that Mr Lineker ever will be. What this shows, yet again, is that the right is now the enemy of freedom.

We should put this demand alongside the Mail and Express’s calls for pro-Remain “traitors” to be silenced; the Tory attacks upon independent institutions such as the Bank of England; the investigatory powers bill; and the fact that many supporters of immigration controls also want (pdf) controls over other areas of economic life. And, let’s remember, immigration controls themselves are attacks upon freedom: they deprive people of the freedom to live where they choose or hire whom they choose.

All these are examples of the right’s hostility to freedom. Yes, this hostility might be popular – but that tells us only that there can be a tension between liberty and the will of the people.

To those of us of a certain age, this illiberal trend might look odd. During the 60s and 70s the cliché was that there was a trade-off between equality and freedom and that the left leant towards the former whilst the right favoured the latter. And western Cold Warriors were forever proclaiming the virtues of freedom against the “evil Empire” that was the USSR.

So, what happened?

In truth, not much. In many cases, the right’s espousal of freedom was only ever a pretence. Whilst they pretended to bemoan the USSR’s lack of freedom, they supported Pinochet, apartheid and the repression of women and gays, and were (and are) untroubled by coercion in the workplace. The only freedom the right truly believed in was freedom for bigots and exploiters.

I say all this because many people still don’t seem to realize it – perhaps because their instincts were formed during the Cold War. There’s an odd type of lefty or ex-lefty who whines about no-platforming and restrictions on free speech at universities whilst under-appreciating the fact that the biggest threats to liberty don’t come from silly teenagers. And many of those who think of themselves as supporters of freedom (such as the Adam Smith Institute?) seem to associate more with rightists than lefties.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. It is we Marxists, more so than rightists or centrists, who are the champions of freedom. What we’re seeing now is yet more vindication of this.

Another thing: bigots please note. Paying your TV licence does not give you a right of veto over every BBC appointment.

Comments

How many people on the Western political right genuinely admired right-wing tyrannies such as Pinochet's Chile or Apartheid South Africa, and how many supported them purely because they thought the alternative was Marxist (even pro-Soviet) rule?

After all Pinochet overthrew an actual Marxist government (the first such government in the world to be democratically elected), and the ANC was also strongly Marxist in its politics (perhaps because of the Apartheid regime's unwillingness to compromise, and/or because South Africa's mining-dominated economy was very amenable to state control).

"It is we Marxists, more so than rightists or centrists, who are the champions of freedom."

Given the track record of Marxists in power, that statement is somewhat unbelievable...

True, many Marxists did and do see themselves as seeking freedom but they also seek other things (such as centralisation, nationalisation, a "workers'" state, etc.) which ensure that desire remains unachievable.

In terms of “freedom in the workplace”, as an example, have you not read Engels’ “On Authority” which proclaimed it impossible? Or Lenin’s arguments in 1918 on the need for “dictatorial” one-man managers?

I would suggest, as Engels' "On Authority" shows, this is because Marxism and (classical) Liberalism have a lot in common -- and classical liberalism is not that interested in freedom (property, yes, freedom not so much -- at least for the working class). Marxism, likewise, seems to view freedom as isolation rather than how we associate (unlike anarchism).

All in all, Marxism in power showed that the anarchist critique of it was correct. We have always opposed capitalism and state socialism, rightly arguing that they were both authoritarian systems.

In terms of the right, I discuss classical liberalism and propertarianism here:

The instrumentalism went the other way. Authoritarian regimes during the Cold War were keen to paint their opponents as thoroughgoing Marxists in order to secure US support.

Allende headed a broad left coalition in Chile that included a number of non-Marxist parties, and he required support by the centrist Christian Democrats to become president in 1970. His government pursued policies within the mainstream of postwar social democracy, but with the addition of land redistribution.

The Apartheid regime in South Africa exaggerated the influence of the Communist Party on the ANC. To that end, it even sought to marginalise more "nationalist" opposition groups like the PAC and BCM in media coverage. As events after 1994 proved, the SACP was a paper tiger.

"You can sum up in one sentence the disgusting opinions of the rabble of MPs who are demanding a Commons vote on Brexit: 'The people have spoken, we don’t like what they said because they aren’t as clever as us so let’s ignore them and try to reverse the referendum result.'

Such snake-like treachery cannot go unpunished. Here’s what I would do with them: clap them in the Tower of London. They want to imprison us against our will in the EU so we should give them 28 days against their will to reflect on the true meaning of democracy"

Even allowing for hyperbole, and that it's the Express, this is still a fairly shocking thing from a national newspaper in a western liberal democracy.

There is, of course, the unfortunate matter of the largest persistent rollback of Western Reproductive rights in the 20th century. But trans women have always been the lumpen class that cisfeminists have hoped would moulder away when the world became less sexist or something...

But we don't really want to talk about how that OTHER queer health crisis was a leftist project.

That you have a more socially acceptable out-group doesn't mean that you aren't disproportionately centering concerns and harm against people who suffer less harm. Just that your rent-seekers are more sympathetic and your pariah class more lumpenized.

The political left and centre ground's threat to arrest Le Pen for expressing politicial views they don't like is not exactly a shining example of the left's love of free speech.

But what is truely hilarious is that Sarkozy and other French politicians are now expressing Le Pen type views since they realize there are votes to be had there. But (gasps of amazement) they don't get threatened with arrest.

No. Both The Sun and Chris regularly attack the BBC, often in colourful language. And although (as you note) The Sun may illustrate its objections by reporting specific anecdotes about named individuals, while Chris tends to exculpate these same by reference to institutional structures, I cannot see that this makes the difference you claim.

After all, if Chris was solely concerned by what he sees as the inadequacy of political journalism overall (which is what I think you're suggesting), we could expect him to launch similarly excoriating attacks on other media outlets, from The Economist to The Guardian and from ITV News to Talk Radio.

But no. Like The Sun, Chris's criticisms are specific to the BBC and I fail to see much difference between their arguments, though of course they come at it from entirely different directions.